Skip to main content

Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Good

Ind. Ct. App.December 31, 2009No. 85A04-0902-CV-89Cited 8 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Citation
919 N.E.2d 144, 2009 Ind. App. LEXIS 2851, 2009 WL 5173522
Judge(s)
Vaidik, Darden, Bradford
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal
State
Indiana

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

Trial court properly sanctioned Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Company for intentionally violating orders in limine by having its employee reference Randall Good's felony convictions, awarding over $26,000 in attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and jury costs as compensatory damages.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Randall Good was involved in a legal dispute with his former employer, Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Company. During the court proceedings, the judge had issued specific orders (called "orders in limine") that prohibited Allied from mentioning Good's past felony convictions during the trial. Despite these clear court orders, Allied deliberately had one of its employees reference Good's criminal history anyway. **What the Court Decided** The court ruled against Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Company and ordered them to pay over $26,000 in penalties. This money covered Good's attorney fees, expert witness costs, and jury expenses. The court found that Allied intentionally violated the judge's instructions by bringing up the prohibited information about Good's criminal past. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows that employers cannot ignore court rules, even during legal disputes with their workers. When courts set boundaries about what can and cannot be discussed during trials, employers must follow those rules. If they don't, they can face significant financial penalties. This protection helps ensure that workers get fair treatment in court proceedings and that their past mistakes don't unfairly prejudice their cases when those issues aren't relevant to the dispute at hand.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.